May 13, 2008

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.

Ugh. Is the NYT painting it this way, or does HC's big victory deserve this downgrade?

UPDATE: There's a great comments thread inside, but since we've gone over 200 here, making the comments hard to see, please continue the conversation on this new thread that points back here.

243 comments:

Hmmm, I love ambiguity. Is it, 'I've got to do something, anything but listen to the CableNewser types blather endlessly about the latest results and somehow spin Hillary's expected big win as really being a victory for Obama'?

Or is it, I've got to do something, I'm really, really busy, and would have actually enjoyed listening and blogging about the endless spin and blather tonight, but life intrudes'?

As far as a discussion goes, the MSM has spoken (or at least Tim Russert) and declared the race over as of last Tuesday, so I'd expect tonight's coverage to be reflective of those pronouncements.

My local rag already set the tone with today's above the fold front page headline "Hanging on to Clinton dream" (surprised they didn't use 'bitterly clinging' instead of 'hanging on').

The online version uses a different headline, but the story's the same (and the print subhead is different to, in print it's, "An army of female backers watches in dismay as a bid to make history fades")

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Not sure there is much to discuss. Obama will be the nominee no matter what, but it is important to note that as West Virginia goes tonight, so goes all of the "gun-toting, God-clinging, working-class" states in November, including Obama-loving North Carolina.

Even if she loses at this point, it was worth going on at least for this state rather than drop out last week, when people said she should. Better to go out with a bang than look like you're being pushed out early.

That Bush quote about the golf is so insane, I can't believe he said it. I mean, even for him, I can't believe he said it. Truly the worst. Ever.

I hope Hillary wins 90/10 tonight...I don't know why, but it'll be fun to watch her act all excited about it, even as she knows that she'll be dropping out next week. I like to watch her when she's being the best crazy lying maniac she can be.

"I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris."

Michelle Bernard is commenting that possibly Hillary Clinton's staff will not be released to hop onto the Obama Train, largely because they are committed to her.

This is interesting, and something which Ann will probably be blogging on. But what do you think?

Given the vicious solidarity the Clintons have always expected from their closest associates, do you think (a) her staffers will jump ship eventually? (b) the Clintons will sever ties with said staffers?

Stephanopolous might've acted all chummy with Hillary during the ABC debate, but let me tell you, few people were more hated by the Clintons than he was.

Like the Kennedys and Bushes, the Clintons don't take kindly to people they consider rats.

Gosh, I'm finding that distracting. There's Hillary, giving her W.Va. victory speech, and right behind her left soldier is, it seems, the one black person in that part of the crowd, and right behind HIM is this young dude who's been waving a bowling pin around (or clapping with it) almost the entire speech, often enough with a sly little grin.

In West Virginia you know a thing or two about rough roads!! You know from the Bible (gak) that faith can move mountains. [...] I am more determined than ever to continue this campaign.

I want to commend Senator Obama and his supporters on their campaign. [...]

I need your help to continue this journey. I hope you go to HillaryClinton.com and support our campaign. [second minute of her speech, sheesh]

Some said our campaign our campaign was over in Iowa, but then we won New Hampshire.

BOTH SENATOR OBAMA AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DELEGATES FROM FLORIDA SHOULD BE SEATED.

(Really???)

[talking about neither her nor Obama having enough to win outright]

[...]

Want to send a message to everyone still making up their minds. I believe I am the strongest candidate. Strongest candidate to lead our country in November 2008, and the strongest president, yadda yadda.

[she didn't say that ;)]

We won in...and now West Virginia!

No Democratic President has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia.

[Wow, really? Buh-bye Obama]

[...]

With your help, I am ready to go head-to-head with John McCain.

[...]

I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me!

[crowd gave a little cheer when she mentioned health care]

I ask you Democrats to choose who you believe will make the strongest candidate in the Fall.

[I dislike Fall. It's Autumn!]

For the nurse on her second shift, for the waitress on her feet, the coal miner, the trucker, all the jobs Mike Rowe does on the Discovery Channel in Dirty Jobs [okay, I made that up] -- you won't quit, so I won't either.

Why do so many Democrats want us to keep going?

They know we have two wars going, 9 trillion dollars in debt, grocery prices shooting up.

This election is fundamentally about if the American dream is alive and well.

This is the core of my dreams and beliefs.

We know that people have to work hard, but at the very least you should have a president who is on your side...again.

I believe this campaign has been GOOD for the Democratic Party, and the country, people are turning up in record numbers to register to vote [Operation Chaos, thank you].

For me this election is not about who is up or who is down.

[...]

We are united by common values. We want the best for our country. And our nominee will be STRONGER for having campaigned long and hard.

[She could be right. This is a real trial by fire for the inexperienced Barack Obama]

[...]

I will work hard to make sure we will have a Democratic president. So, as we look at the States in this election -- we haven't had an election like it, since as long as someone can remember.

[...]

This has been a long campaign, but it's just an instant in time for the choices we will make in November. But if you gave me the chance, I will come back to W. Virginia in the general election, and we will WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!

[She's mentioning Robert C. Byrd -- a national treasure, snort]

[I think she mentioned Chuck Yeager? He's from W. Virginia! Cool]

Bill and Chelsea and I have had the best time. I will be back as we move on to the next contest in Kentucky, Puerto Rico and Oregon...

[Mentioning an elderly lady who voted absentee but a few days ago]

Florence was born before women was born before women had the right to vote, and she was determined to exercise that right. To cast a ballot for the candidate of her choice who just happened to be a woman. Florence passed a few days ago.

[Now she's mentioning a little kid, Dalton, who supports her too]

Together there is no barrier we cannot break, no dream that isn't worth fighting for.

Thank you! Whew! [I made that up to]"

Olbermann just side-swiped her supporters by calling them "delirious".

garage mahal said..."Who knew there were so many states with so many racist Democrats. Has anyone asked Obama that if half of his own party are racists, how does he expect to get elected?"

Well, fortunately, most of the GOP aren't. Unfortunately for Obama, it won't matter, since most of us think his politics are so totally wrong we wouldn't go near him. I rally don't think race is a driver on either side - I know there's a big splashy thing in the WaPo saying that it is, but I think that's just the MSM finding the exceptions to write the conventional wisdom story.

I was surprised it wasn't mentioned on the channel I was watching, because it just jumped out at me, pretty much right away (note the timestamp on my initial comment ... and I didn't exactly run to the computer, as I was on the phone at the time, though I did post it shortly after the start of the speech). I mean, the guy had to have brought that pin with him purposely; people don't just wander around in daily life with bowling pins, do they?

Personally, though, had I been on campaign, I would have had him ditch it. I really think it sent a negative message; bad symbolism, and unfortunately dovetailing right into some of the more negative commentary and criticism, whether it's mentioned or not.

Watching the results come in, the margin of victory seems to be getting wider. It started at about 25 points, now it's 37. And she'll end up gaining more than 100,000 net votes, so the popular vote is affected significantly here. I wonder what she would have to do after tonight to claim the popular vote by some count (and it might depend on whether you count Puerto Rico in the popular vote, too).

Meanwhile, Donna Brazile says people in Michigan and Florida weren't "disenfranchised," because it wasn't "personal," the state officials violated the rules, the DNC was trying to avoid a trainwreck, etc. (as if throwing away two states wouldn't be a trainwreck). I don't see how you can expect people in those states to not see their votes being thrown out as a form of disenfranchisement. And I think the DNC deserves to be punished for what they did in those two states in the general election. If I lived in Florida, my feeling in November would be, "If you didn't want our votes then, you're not getting our votes now."

Simon, I dunno. I wish I could believe it's just the exceptions, but, as you and I have discussed before, I don't find that so easy. And though it pains me to say it, that includes with regard to Indiana.

If I lived in Florida, my feeling in November would be, "If you didn't want our votes then, you're not getting our votes now."

Oh hey Chris. ;)

I have a neighbour who is a Republican Party operative. He told me last week that Party officials are seriously telling McCain to take a very good look at our first-time Governor, Charlie Crist, who succeeded Jeb Bush.

And all my mother's Jewish lady friends say no one in Hades will they vote for Obama.

These are but anecdotal references, of course, but it shows you the sentiment at play at the moment.

I'm not seeing a lot of going off on Democrats in this particular thread, Titus. And I'd be surprised if people here didn't know I don't buy into the generalized "Democrats hate America" meme. Not my thing.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said..."Brazile says people in Michigan and Florida weren't "disenfranchised," because it wasn't "personal," the state officials violated the rules, the DNC was trying to avoid a trainwreck, etc. (as if throwing away two states wouldn't be a trainwreck)."

Can someone explain to me -- with all due respect, I mean, I'm very happy but mildy surprised to be on the same side as GarageMahal, at least for now -- how the Democratic party isn't in the scenario of two express trains heading at full speed toward a head-on collision in Denver?

And, for God's sake - of all the states to play disenfranchisement with! You want to play disenfrachisement games in Florida?! But for the writer's strike, this would have been "really?! With Seth and Amy" fodder.

You know, it really is sort of a rock and hard place. I think the problem is that actual rank-and-file "voters" got lost at the very start of the whole primary-organization process--and by that I mean including those long and detailed meetings about setting the rules that C-Span aired a couple-so years back, which I was insane enough to watch, in sometimes horrified, sometimes merely stuperous, fashion. My husband and I just sort of shook our heads and said, "uh-oh."

And the guy from Michigan who spoke up the most--sorry, it's a really obvious and well-known person, but the name is temporarily escaping--was one of the ones who most strenuously argued for moving up his state's primary, against the traditional place of Iowa and New Hampshire, etc. etc. and so on.

I am generally the topic of conversation everywhere I go. The clothes, accoutrements, shoes, body, are always commented on. by friends and others wanting me. And generally I detect envy and a little lust...love that combination.

titusIaminittowinit said..."OK, I am watching Hillary speak and there is one black guy in the audience."

Given that for the last four months, 90% of them have supported the other candidate (if exit polls are to be believed), why is that a shock? When she came to speak in my town, I was the only Republican I know who showed up. And to be fair, that's only because I wanted to see if she was as cute in person as she is on TV.

I have an announcement: Hillary Clinton is going to reclaim the popular vote lead tonight (if you count Florida and Michigan). Yes, I know he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Still, she may end up with a popular vote lead by some measure of the vote. I figured this out using the Real Clear Politics chart and then estimating what her overall lead in West Virginia will be, since it's not fully reported yet:

The derth of Althouse has forced me to Photoshop®™ global warming Hillary, protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. And then to gently smash coriander seeds to separate the two germs contained within in an effort to encourage germination. But now, I'm beginning to think I should just go out to the clubs and allow my naturally occurring charm to work its magic leaving all I engage perfectly enchanted.

Alright, her victory in WV is now over a 40-point margin and she has the popular vote by one measure of the vote (even if it's the least legitimate measure). They're not really talking about that yet, but they will be tomorrow.

Chris, would you agree that this campaign will be the future textbook example of why a compressed primary schedule - worse yet, the one day primary favored by some - is hugely problematic? It seems to me that the Democratic frontrunner is imploding having all-but secured the nomination, and it may be too late for the party to turn it around.

Ruth Anne, if you're still here, you should follow Vicky's link and steal it for posterity. Hell, maybe I'LL steal it, turn it into a poster and send it to you. Got access to a high-quality 11X17 color printer?

Simon: You mean you think it should be longer? I'm not sure that's the message a lot of people are getting. I think it's a good example of why it's important to vet the underdogs and bring out the dirt on them too, not just the frontrunner, rather than let them fly under the radar for most of the campaign season.

The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.And, of course, similar polls are taken of black voters?

Ruth Anne, remember, always, the spirit of the bayonet: "Kill!" Now, let's all of us be good little Drill Sergeants and ask our fledgling troopers to go nightie-night and turn off the lights. After all this is the new Army!

Jeez, I never thought that "they", those of the feminine variety, would share our barracks, even though we always knew there were some of "them" there but as long as "them" kept quiet and didn't tell, we really didn't care except when in the communal showers; way back in the days of old!

Simon, you are positing that such people are seeing the need for and suggesting just one change, and not another (others). That's a rather narrow interpretation, lacking imagination and really, when it gets down to it, unfair.

Ugh. Is the NYT painting it this way, or does HC's big victory deserve this downgrade?

It isn't necessarily a downgrade. Obama's friends and associates are anti-white, and Obama himself quite possibly is as well. So race definitely played a part in my preferring Hillary to him -- a white person would have to be nuts to want an anti-white President.

One of the problems with the "primary season," as you phrase it, is that the CAMPAIGN season, starts way, way, way earlier than it used to. It's almost continuous. That's the trend. And it's DESTRUCTIVE, because the candidates, and their people, and their partisans, get and stay in a certain mindset for, quite literally, yearS at a time. I mean, that's just fine for certain subsets of people (politicians, pundits both professional and amateur, journalists, activists, & etc.), but it's got some pretty darn big negatives for your basic, everyday people--and here, I do mean "every day" people; it's not a code for, say, "working class" or somesuch--and the body politic, the We The People.

If you can't understand that point, whether or not you agree with it, perhaps you should sit back and reflect.

I like the cut of Christopher Althouse Cohen's jib. He's said some of the best election commentary on this thread. And I'm not just saying that because I agree with him. Okay, I am just saying that for that reason. But still.

Sorry about that second post--I had gotten one of those bhxt-or-whatever error notices that my original comment didn't post, and I didn't see it, and so I tried to reconstruct what I'd dashed off before. That's what the delete's about--when I came back in after the second post, I saw the original HAD posted, after all.

Simon: perhaps this is really a textbook example not that the calendar needs to be changed, but that there really needs to be some method through which the party can save itself from an imploding frontrunner who's established a seemingly insurmountable pledged delegate lead. If only there were some other, "super" way of saving the party from the "delegate" leader. If only there were some mechanism created by the party for this very scenario.

Ruth Anne Adams: Yes. It's also an example of how people won't take something seriously until they see video. The Jeremiah Wright thing (and the Farrakhan thing) were already out there, but no one cared.

And to those who say Hillary can't win: even if he had the magic number, with superdelegates, all you'd need to reverse it would be to find a video somewhere of Obama getting up and cheering at one of Wright's rants. Or for the general public to realize he must have done so.

Christopher: I'm sorry for not being clear. I'm extending my response to Simon's 10:51 comment, in which he used the phrase "compressed primary season" (the first comment, I believe, to make the reference to "primary season" in this thread).

Obama won't have that luxury. Don't forget, all those alleged uneducated alleged racists you look down on are Democrats. These are votes the party counts on. The smart guys in your party aren't so relaxed about losing them. There aren't enough student activists to offset them; and most of those are in very blue states, so they won't make a difference.

Your offhand and probably unearned elitism is a time bomb under Obama's prospects.

If Republicans believe they can use race to gain something, they should reconsider it given tonight's race in Mississippi.

In a district that President Bush won by 26 percent in 2004 and is overwhelmingly Republican, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent over $1 million dollars on a special election there. Most of that money was spent on ads that tried to link the Democrat, Travis Childers, to Obama and Reverend Wright.

And the ads failed spectacularly. Childers actually increased his margin from the first round of voting (this was a runoff election) from 49-47% over Republican Greg Davis up to 54-46%. In some places, such as Lafayette County, where Davis had won an outright majority in the first election, the county actually flipped and gave Childers the majority of votes after the ads ran.

The explanation isn't hard to follow either. Davis ran on trying to tie Childers to Rev. Wright. Childers ran on the economy. Obviously voters considered their wallet to be the number one priority and equally obviously were turned off by the GOP attack ads.

Davis probably also wasn't helped by a visit by Vice President Cheney on his behalf-- even in a district where Bush won in a landslide four years ago, his administration isn't very popular.

And oh yeah-- combined with the loss of the former Speaker's district in Illinois and another very red southern district in Louisiana (another district whe the GOP tried to exploit the Rev. Wright issue) that leaves Republicans with only 199 seats in the house. The drop below 200 is a psychological blow as well as an actual blow to the GOP.

Zachary: Accusing Hillary supporters of being racist is just going to make even more of us defect to McCain. And the smear campaign that painted Hillary Clinton as herself a racist, which was called out by no one in the media and which was based on nothing, didn't make a lot of us want to support your candidate in the end. So if you wonder why the party is split in a way that will hurt Obama's chances in the general, just look at how that's been played out with elitist (you said it first) stereotyping of white voters. If you think you can win by talking down to mainstream Americans and telling them they're obligated to think a certain way and vote a certain way, it's just going to backfire. And I need only point to the last two Presidential elections for the evidence that that's how it plays out.

Ruth Anne: I decided it was too angry and wasn't worth it. Zachary Paul Douchebag is just another little shit trying to bait people and I realized that other's responses to him were more measured and in the end more suitable.

Well, Palladian, I can respect that, but a particular analogy you made therein was certainly on point, and useful. Obviously, I won't reproduce it because it's yours, but still, as I said, I thought it was a good and fair analogy (though I can't say I agree with the ENTIRE comment, but then: who'd expect that? and who cares?).

Ruth Anne, I know how you feel indeed. The subject of your earlier anger certainly deserved it. I've had the same problem with that person as well. Unfortunately some people (proprietor included) seem to mistake sociopathic behavior and senseless vulgarity for "humor".

I'm not concerned about one tiny blip of a state filled with uneducated poor people.

Uneducated poor people are a core Democratic constituency. You probably ought to care how they vote.

Look at other "white" states like Iowa, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas...where Obama won decisive victories.

First of all, those states voted before the Wright fiasco, back when Obama was still pretending to be the race-neutral candidate; his percentages among white voters have declined significantly since then. Secondly, most of them are midwestern states where Obama's ties to the Chicago machine work for him. Finally, he won Iowa with a 38% plurality, which isn't terribly "decisive" since we don't know if he'd have won at all in a two-way race.

Yeah, probably the same Democrats who voted for Bush in 2004.

So you're aiming for a repeat of 2004? I have to question your strategy there, Zack.

Pointing out blatantly obvious facts, with plenty of exit polling data to back it up, about clearly misinformed voters, has nothing to do with race baiting. If you feel like someone has attempted to bait you, maybe there's something else going on.

Palladian: If you're serious, I could e-mail it to you ... . (I get comments mailed to me in comments threads in which I participate. It's relatively rare, anymore, that I can actually follow in real time, as I am tonight.)

Christopher: I was just trying to respond to your query without taking up space by copying everything into a long comment that would engender scrolling for everyone. Sorry to have annoyed you; I missed that your question was rhetorical. My bad.

Hopefully not. But since Obama won't be winning WV in November, the state is a lost cause. He'll have to focus on other states like New Mexico and Colorado (along with Ohio and Florida) to pull it off.

I don't have anger issues like Palady and Ruthie. I have unearned elitism issues and sorry if that offended anyone.

And the ads failed spectacularly. Childers actually increased his margin from the first round of voting (this was a runoff election) from 49-47% over Republican Greg Davis up to 54-46%.

Like you pointed out, it was a runoff election. All five of Davis' rivals were running as an alternative to the previous Republican representation. Unsurprisingly their supporters broke heavily for the opposition, just as the Nader voters would have broken for Gore if there had been a runoff in 2000.

So it isn't possible to conclude that the ads didn't work. It certainly isn't possible to conclude that race issues don't work -- Childers pulled a last minute race smear himself, after all. The more sensible conclusion is that Republican voters are fed up with the party. Well, duh.

"I'm not concerned about one tiny blip of a state filled with uneducated poor people."

And I'm not concerned about one crime-ridden blip of an inner city filled with uneducated poor black people.

How does that sentiment sound to you? Sounds like the insipid blurt of a racist asshole? Well it's no different than the sentiments you and the Obamatrons seem to endorse.

Well guess what? The majority of America isn't concerned about one large blip of any city filled with over-educated rich people.

No doubt you are one of the important educated rich people who you seem to think should control the lives of the rubes in flyover land. Well you've got a surprise coming to you, O superior being. It's people like you, and your superior messiah, that have been and will be the eternal losers in the United States. It's the people you mock and disdain as hillbillies and racists that die for your sorry, lazy, worthless little white ass.

Believe me, when Obama is defeated, either before or after the Democratic convention, your premature schadenfreude will seem even more pathetic than it already does.

Let me just sum it all up by saying that, come Election Day in November, I will be watching CNN-HD, popping some popcorn, and laughing as McCain obliterates Obama faster than Hillary could respond to a nuclear attack against Israel.

Hopefully not. But since Obama won't be winning WV in November, the state is a lost cause.

Hillary would win it easily.

He'll have to focus on other states like New Mexico and Colorado (along with Ohio and Florida) to pull it off.

Clinton trounced Obama in Florida and Ohio, and beat him in New Mexico. That's 52 electoral votes to 9, for those of you playing the home game.

It is pretty simple: Obama can't win the Presidency without beating McCain in several of the swing states he lost in the primaries. Hillary, on the other hand, can win the election without any of the swing states she lost in the primaries. That means that Obama faces a tougher fight than Hillary.

He's more popular than her overall, sure. And if we elected the President by popular vote that might actually matter.

Doesn't everyone see comments here with the same date stamp? I thought blogger date stamps were reflective of the blog's pre-set time zone, not necessarily the blogger's and much less that of those reading it or commenting on it.

Reader, I see time stamps only for comments, no date. The post has a time and a date. The time stamp for posts and comments are set to the time zone of the blog, in Althouse's case today, Central Daylight Time, GMT -5, UTC -6

"Chris - under that logic, she should stay in until Kentucky, where IIRC she also has a commanding lead."

Well, of course. Why not go out with all the victories you can? As far as her staying in hurting the Democrats in November, that's nonsense. No one is going to vote for the Republicans anyway and besides by then McCain will probably have a heart attack or more cancer.

Let me just sum it all up by saying that, come Election Day in November, I will be watching CNN-HD, popping some popcorn, and laughing as McCain obliterates Obama faster than Hillary could respond to a nuclear attack against Israel.

From your keyboard to God's inbox, Christopher.

I was going to remind Zachary that 1) the internet is forever and 2) his children may some day be embarrassed by what he has posted here, but then I perused his blog. ... which is more of the same. Let's hope young Zachary never interviews for a position at a company where the HR department routinely googles the candidates.

I will say, I love the irony of a gay man surnamed Sire.

Reader: FWIW, your last post, with the OT question, is timestamped 12:57AM -- IOW, Central time, and my local time (AZ) is just past 11PM (we're in sync with Pacific time now). Palladian, it's not just you; I'm running Firefox on Vista and the timestamps on each comment are not clickable.

"and besides by then McCain will probably have a heart attack or more cancer."

Where does this now-common sentiment come from? I hear everyone say this as if it's inevitable. While I understand the concern, it's a bit off-putting. Why not say the same about Hillary or Obama, who are also both as liable to have heart attacks or cancer as McCain.